coronavirus quarantine
Contrary to what most people have been led to believe, the coronavirus may be less virulent and less deadly than the influenza virus. Australian scientists have reportedly discovered that people recover from coronavirus in much the same way they recover from the flu. Despite this, coronavirus has transformed the entire world in just a matter of days.

People in ostensibly democratic Western societies are accepting draconian measures "for their own good", and a precedent is being set for unjustified quarantines, lock downs, travel bans and much more. Right this minute a great portion of the global population are 'self-isolating' on the basis of vague science and dubious speculation based on unreliable data.

So while the coronavirus itself is likely much less dangerous than we are being told, the seemingly normal yet nefarious language being utilized to describe, and thereby exacerbate, this 'crisis' is posing a real threat to our societies. When people stop questioning the why and how of a situation, and limit themselves to blindly accepting state orders, they are asking for trouble. Words take on new meanings, and influence the way we all view reality. When a certain view become a consensus reality, it can lead to dramatic changes in reality itself.

Language is so natural to us that we don't often stop to think how it can be used as a 'weapon of mass destruction', or at least a weapon of mass hysteria. I explain how in the video below.


Full transcript:
Hello and welcome to language with Chu,

As you may have noticed, usually I don't go into any political issues or anything like that basically, because I'm a newbie on YouTube and I don't want to get banned just now, but I figured this current situation warrants a bit of a discussion on how language and thought interact, and basically there are many linguists who claim that thought is independent from language.

It's kind of like when you dream, you don't have any words assigned to what you think. Well yeah, but that's very limited, I think, and to a great extent, language is very very important when it comes to what you think. If it weren't for language right now, you wouldn't be reading any news, you wouldn't be listening to this, you wouldn't be turning on the TV and understanding what is being said. Language is everywhere. And as everything else, it can be instrumentalized and it can be literally used as a weapon of mass destruction.

Now you may think that's an exaggeration, but I think that's what's going on right now and it has been going on for a long time. It's just that in the last, you know, practically 10 days now, at least in the West, it's been a nightmare of propaganda, lies, panic, fear-mongering campaigns that have nothing to do with reality, and if you don't stay afloat, if you don't pay attention, you can fall into that panic, and in fact many many people are doing it.

So there are many ways in which you can influence thought by a language. Obviously, we all know about propaganda, the basic manipulation techniques, but that comprises a lot of different techniques. You can use words that minimize the situation (euphemisms) to pretend that nothing's really going on, or you can use words that exaggerate the situation (loaded words) which makes it look like it's a real crisis, as we're seeing now.

You can also use acts of speech which means that anything you say becomes an action basically, and we're seeing it right now. A government's suggestion becomes an order, right ? The World Health Organization's recommendation becomes an order. Those are acts: you're actually doing something with what you're saying, and that affects the entire population, at this point pretty much the entire world.

So, let's go word by word shall we? To remain within the realm of linguistics, let's pick the word that is THE most important one I think, right now, when it comes to influencing the masses: that's pandemic. Now pandemic, if you look in any dictionary, comes from pan (all) in Greek, and demos, also Greek, people. So, all the people.

But originally, the definition had two criteria. The first one is that it has to be widespread, not just in one locality, and the second one is that it has to reach a huge amount of people. Now, the World Health Organization has been modifying, changing the meaning of that word and that's what happens... it's not just a matter of language evolution and natural changes. When an institution that has authority starts changing the terms, crucial terms that will determine government decisions and people's lives, then we're in real trouble if it's not used properly.

So back to pandemics: it used to be pretty close to the dictionary definition until, if you remember, although many people have forgotten, the swine flu in 2009. First of all, there was a panic, you know "It's gonna be pandemic blah blah blah", and what happened later was that they halfway apologized, saying "Oh well, there was miscommunication, it didn't turn out to be as bad as we thought", etc.

By that time, they had sold the vaccines they wanted to sell. They had made seven billion dollars, so they didn't care. But in the meantime, the definition changed, now first they said, "Okay it's going to be something that happens simultanously in several countries, so if it happens in the Northern hemisphere and not in the Southern hemisphere, it's not quite a pandemic". It wouldn't be quite a pandemic if it's just in one hemisphere. But because it's in two simultaneously, say the flu, in the North may be winter, while in the South may be summer, if it happens simultaneously, it's a pandemic. And they still kept the idea that a lot of people had to get it.

Now, right now, you just need a virus that spreads beyond borders — which is very easy nowadays — , and they added somehow that people would have no immunity to it. So that's the current definition. It spreads beyond borders, and people have no immunity to it. So basically, they can make up whatever they want and convince you that it's a pandemic now.

Remember, there's no more "It has to reach an insane amount of people". The Spanish flu was a pandemic, the Black Death was a pandemic. Not this! Now if you look at the numbers — I won't go into details, because well, let's stick to language, and I leave you the links at the bottom of this video — it's ridiculous.

More people die from the flu every year. When have you ever seen the measures and the fear-mongering campaign that we're seeing now, because of the flu ? When have you seen the government caring so much about people's deaths, when they don't? I mean 800,000 people commit suicide, more so now, every year. Thousands of people die every minute on this planet and suddenly, what, there were no deaths before?

Don't you find that strange that because of that, you have to lock yourself down ? Look at the numbers again and the links I'm leaving below. In Italy 99.9% of the people who died had other diseases. It's very difficult to test for new viruses; it's very difficult to test for viruses in general, and you never know if the cause of death was the virus itself or the underlying condition. People who have a weak immune system might die with it, but they're not really dying from it. Those cases are very rare and all the numbers, I mean, just dig up a little bit... All the numbers that you see out there are being exaggerated and, really you know, less than a hundred death per in many many countries... 3,000 deaths in China, it's really nothing compared to what a real pandemic would look like.

In a real pandemic, hospitals would be saturated. I've been to two hospitals this week accompanying friends for routine visits and let me tell you: they're not saturated at all. In fact, ask any friend that works in the medical system if they're saturated, they'll tell you they're bored to death because there's only people panicking. Why are they panicking ? Because of the propaganda.

It's not because there's a real emergency. China? No more cases right now. What does that say? In a month, it's over. What does that say? It's like the flu: the immune system fights it equally. We're just finishing the flu season in Europe, it's gonna be normal now, if it fades away what are you going to be told? That it's over because you were such a good citizen that you did it.

But backing up a little bit to the swine flu: what happened was that several doctors complained about the fake announcement that it was a pandemic and actually, you don't have to look very far to see that the current chief of the orld Health Organization is an ex-employee of the Bill Gates Foundation, which is very very happy to give you vaccines.

So well, okay, if you think vaccines are good and are all they're cranked up to be and blah blah blah and you don't think those additives they're adding are bad, then don't even bother watching the rest of this video, because I'm not going to try to convince you... Anyway.

Back in 2009 and 2010, it was proven that, basically, what happens is that a few scientists, privileged experts convinced the World Health Organization — or sometimes they don't even need convincing, its current chief right now doesn't need any convincing I imagine — to say to the governments and to the public that a situation is critical, that there's a pandemic. That then triggers more government spending for "prevention" and for "cures", and that also enhances funding for vaccines.

When you look at who's behind that, I don't think you'll think this is random and innocent, that the government is just looking out for you.

"Protect the elderly": when have they ever thought of protecting the elderly because of a flu? Don't you just do it instinctively because you're a normal citizen not wanting to make your grandpa sick? But okay, sorry, I got carried away.

The thing is that by using that word they're bringing all kinds of memories, all kinds of associations that you make in your own mind because the old definition is still there; "pandemic" is scary and you want to stay at home and you want to protect other people, etc, etc, etc.

But the problem is that when facts don't match what is being said, in your mind you're gonna have a mess, you're gonna have a cognitive dissonance; that is what is going on here? Except you're gonna try to suppress it, because well ,everybody's saying that you should stay at home and you should be a good citizen, etc, etc.

Now, I'm not saying that we should all break the law or anything like that, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that we are led to believe that the situation is way worse than it actually is, and you can make up your own mind about why, what the agenda is. Personally I don't know, there could be like five different agendas, and what I'm concerned about here is how that word is really messing up with your mind, because naturally, you're gonna associate it with something really, really bad.

Now another way in which you can influence language is with what is called paramoralisms. Andrew Lobaczewski in an excellent book called Political Ponerology talked about that, and a paramoralistic assertion basically is something where you add a moral touch to it, to make it simple. So something that your conscience may tell you, "No, no, no, that's that's not good" is sold to you as a way to make you act in certain ways that you wouldn't normally choose.

So what we're seeing now for example is expressions just such as "save the elderly", you know, or "people are not being responsible enough" by not following the strict rules. But basically, the idea is that you have to be a good person and you're only a good person if you obey.

The director of the World Health Organization Tedros Adhanom, whom I spoke about before, gave a speech on the 11th of March and it's full of these paramoralisms:
Pandemic is not a word to use slightly or carelessly, if misused it can cause unreasonable fear or unjustified acceptance that the fight is over, leading to unnecessary suffering and death.
Now that's pulling all your strings for basically a common flu, because the coronavirus has been there forever. It's tested every year, and yes, some of the deaths are supposedly caused by it, but like I said the numbers are... You can make up whatever statistics you want basically to crank up the numbers. But that played on all your feelings and you know, "unnecessary suffering", etc. What about the unnecessary suffering that goes on every day in the world for many, many other reasons? Anyway, I digress again.

He said, for example:
The challenges for many countries who are now dealing with large clusters or community transmissions...
which is not true...
The question is not whether they can do something positive (in this case obey the orders), it's whether they will.
Another one in his speech:
We cannot say this loudly enough or clearly enough or often enough: all countries can still change the course of this pandemic.
And then towards the end, you find that he says:
I remind all countries that we are calling on you to activate and scale up your emergency mechanisms.
That is, we want governments to react and we're giving you the green light so that you can institute measures and policies that will hurt the population out of basically a lie and an exaggeration, which later on they can deny. That's another tactic in rhetorics, in undemocratic speech, is that you say enough but not enough to get you in trouble later if you have to deny it.

So yeah, the whole thing is a mess and that's just "pandemic" but there are also words like "flatten the curve". Frankly that's a stupid term. First of all, what does it mean ? Okay, if it was a real pandemic, you could say the less people are in contact with each other, the better for the virus to stop causing harm.

The problem is the virus mutates very fast, the problem, the REAL problem, is that there is no "curve" as such, because the numbers are made up, so you're told to do a bunch of stuff, to stop working, to risk your monthly salary, to not even let your children play with their grandparents, to basically restrict a bunch of liberties for something that really doesn't exist.

Now they make really nice graphics, you can be convinced that flattening the curve would be the solution, but think about it: some people have it, and it's asymptomatic, which means you may never notice, you may never get tested, you will never know, but it's everywhere, right? The enemy is everywhere.

And when they talk about flattening the curve, what would be the logic of it, if you think about it, that you flatten the curve so that you avoid there being a peak, with people who are weak and unfortunately die, or get treated —which I think would be totally doable given the numbers—, and then the virus kind of goes silent, and voilà! Like the flu every year.

Instead of doing that, what they're telling you is that to protect these so-called saturated hospitals and healthcare services, you have to smooth the curve down and make it so that the virus is still there for a long time but very mild. So what they're saying is that they want to keep this situation going for much longer? How does that make sense? It doesn't, unless there's another agenda behind it.

Another term is "self isolation". Now you're either asocial if you do that, or you're being forced to do it, but they're coating it in a way that makes it sound nice and responsible. "Look, I'm self isolating, I want to protect the elderly, I want to be a good citizen, etc, etc."

Now remember the rhetoric back when 9/11 happened? It was: "We all have to unite, we all have to save Western values", etc. Because there was an external enemy. In that case the external enemy was made to be human. In this case, it's even more insidious, because it's everywhere, it could be in your loved ones; basically they're telling you "Be afraid of everybody". And the virus is in the air so there you go ! There's nowhere safe. Now if that doesn't cause a peak of stress, which by the way makes you more vulnerable to disease, I don't know what will.

But they're also using terms that evoke fear because they referenced World War 2 a lot: 65 million people might die, we've never been in a situation as bad as during World War 2, we're at war with this virus, it's us versus the coronavirus.

They're trying to bring the collective memory back to World War 2 for some reason, there's a lot of things that are wrong with the picture that they are depicting, particularly when again we consider the real facts on the ground.

Another one that I love is "herd immunity". Now apparently they use it in scientific circles, but you hear that and you're basically being called an animal, and you're basically part of the sheep that have to behave, so sure, yeah, go for herd immunity if you want, but don't underestimate the effect that these words have on you.

If you want to believe all that, then you will need to believe that the government is good, well yeah, what can I say. Truth is that, if there was a real danger, I would believe it, but in this case there is nothing, people !

Now one more thing about the paramoralisms is that they are contagious. Not only do they make you not think in terms the way you would normally think, but they're contagious. And we're seeing it

more and more, how people for example start yelling at each other in the street because you're going for a walk, you're going for a run and they're just angry, panicked-looking, and telling other people that they're being bad for not complying with the rules 100%.

And the thing is, when you change your values, when you shut down your values because of the discourse that is being sold to you, you are putting yourself at a higher risk, and I think it's way more deadly in the long run than any virus that we've seen up to now. Why? Because it's a slow death, it's the death of your conscience, it is the death of your critical thinking capacity, it is the death of your values.
It's not just a flu that you'll recover from, it's years and years of manipulating words and discourse to make you think in a certain way.

When would we have accepted as a global society the type of decisions that are made now, the types of policies, unless it was enforced? It's kind of like a martial law and curfew "made nice", and people are asking for it, people are asking for the government to remove cash for example, which amounts to basically, you're not having any say on your finances if somebody decides to block everything.

People are asking for more and more measures. Now maybe I'm wrong and it doesn't have to do anything with language, and I think ultimately that is the truth; it has to do with with where humanity is at, and what people really are asking, but I can't help but think that something needs to be said about the manipulation of language, in case somebody out there is doubting and wants to actually become immune, literally immune to this huge amount of propaganda.

And it can start from words, it can start from your questioning the basic premise of the whole problem, it can start from you thinking about what's really important for you in life and if this situation really is all it's cranked up to be, and if you really need to make the sacrifices you're making right now to basically feel like you're in control and a good citizen...

Well there's many other ways to do that, and you're already doing it, so why would you need such enforcing of discipline and rules to feel that way?

Anyway, these are just some of the things we can say about thought and language, I don't want to make it too long either, and I hope it helps keep your immunity a little bit. I know it's not much, but yeah, you're being bombarded, so keep your mental immunity and if you happen to watch this video because somebody sent you the link —cuz I doubt they'll promote it anywhere— then thanks for sharing it and liking it, and see you next time for more normal, linguistic topics... maybe.

Byebye.